See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/303837619

A comparative evaluation of micro-leakage of different tooth colored restorative

materials. An in-vitro study.

Article · February 2016

CITATION READS

1 233

3 authors, including:

Vishesh Gupta Akanksha Bhatt

Babu Banarasi Das College of Dental Sciences,Babu Banarasi Das University Babu Banarsi Das College of Dental Sciences,Lucknow.
47 PUBLICATIONS   29 CITATIONS    32 PUBLICATIONS   8 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Akanksha Bhatt on 07 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Govil S. et al. A comparative evaluation of micro-leakage.

ORIGINAL STUDY

A comparative evaluation of micro-leakage of different

tooth colored restorative materials. An in-vitro study.

Somya Govil,1* Vishesh Gupta,2* Akanksha Bhatt,3*

1Associate Professor, Department of Pedodontics with Preventive Dentistry, 2Assosiate Professor,
Department of Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics, 3Assistant Professor, Department of Conservative
Dentistry & Endodontics, *Babu Banarasi Das College of Dental Sciences, BBD University, Lucknow, India.
Received 18 March 2016. Revised 19 March 2016. Accepted 19 March 2016. Published online 20 March 2016.

KEYWORDS: ABSTRACT:
The present in-vitro study aimed to evaluate the microleakage of four tooth coloured restorative
materials in 80 restored Class V cavities.40 human premolar teeth samples were selected and
eighty standardized class V cavities were prepared on them. These were further divided into four
Micro-leakage, groups, each group comprising of 20 prepared cavities, and were restored with four experimental
Tooth colored tooth colored restorative materials (Glass ionomer cement, Resin Modified Glass ionomer
restorative materials, cement, Hybrid composite resin and Nano composite resin) respectively. The restored teeth were
subjected to thermocycling for 500cycles in 37°C neutral bath,5ºC cold water bath and 55°C hot
Resin modified glass water bath followed by 2% methylene blue dye penetration for 24 hours at room temperature.
ionomer cement, Each crown was then sectioned bucco-lingually and the sections were stored in 100% humidity
Nano composite resin, before being examined under stereomicroscope (16 x magnification) to measure the depth of dye
Hybrid composite penetration. The results showed that minimal microleakage in Group II(Fuji IXGP) followed by
resin, Group IV (Z350), Group III(Z100) and Group I(Fuji II LC) showed maximum microleakage. The
difference in the microleakage scores between the groups was statistically significant with high
intergroup variability (F=26.085; p<0.001).

INTRODUCTION: either direction, which causes dentinal pain and marginal

The ultimate goal of a restoration is to restore
the proper tooth form, function and esthetics while
maintaining the physiologic integrity of the teeth in harmony
with the oral environment. One of the essential factors in the
longevity of the restoration is to adapt to the prepared tooth
surface and seal the cavity wall. Theoretically, a tight, non
leaking marginal seal should result from adhesion between the
restorative material and tooth structure.1 In spite of
tremendous improvement in technologies, none of the
materials perfectly bond with the tooth structure. A marginal
gap is left between the cavity wall and the restorative material
leading to micro-leakage.
The properties of the restorative materials which
contribute to micro-leakage are coefficient of thermal
expansion,2,3 polymerization shrinkage4,5 and adhesion.6,7
Micro-leakage is defined as a clinically undetectable passage of
fluids, bacteria, molecules and ions, and even air between a
restorative material and the prepared cavity walls of a tooth.8,9
With microchannels and microgaps between restorative
materials and cavity walls10, there is movement of oral fluids in
Corresponding author: Dr. Vishesh Gupta, 4/13,Vivek
Khand, Gomti Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow,
226010, India.
E-mail: drvisheshgupta@gmail.com
staining.1,11 This seepage can also cause hypersensitivity of
restored teeth, tooth discoloration, recurrent caries and
ultimately pulp death.12,13
It is evident from past literature that marginal seal
plays a major role in the longevity of restoration.14 Thus, the
creation of a perfect seal on the restoration-tooth interface is
still one of the prime goals of restorative dentistry in order to
prevent the penetration of contaminants and attain the lost
peripheral seal of dentin.
The increase in concerns about conserving the
tooth structure in esthetic conscious society has led to
development of tooth colored restorative materials.15 This has
prompted studies to determine the extent of micro-leakage at
the tooth-restoration interface.16
MATERIALS AND METHOD:
The present study was conducted on 40 premolars
extracted for orthodontic purpose which were free of cracks,
caries and restorations17. The teeth samples were cleaned18
and then stored in normal saline at room temperature19. On
each tooth, two Class V cavities were prepared, one on buccal
and other on lingual side20,21. Standard Class V cavities of size
3 x 2 x 2 mm were prepared22, 1.5 mm occlusally from the
cemento-enamel junction using a round/straight fissure/an
inverted cone diamond points of an airotor hand piece(NSK,

IJCPHR 2016, Volume 1, Issue 1, Page Number 10


Micro-leakage Score
0 1 2 3
Group I samples 0 4 6 10
Group II samples 12 7 1 0 micro-leakage of the four tooth colored restorative materials
Group III samples
6 5 8 1
Group IV samples 11 8 1 0 IV-Z350 are compatible while Group III shows moderate
29 24 16 11
Table 1: Micro-leakage score of four groups (80
samples)
Japan) under constant water spray. Prepared cavities were
then
cleaned thoroughly with water and dried gently before
placement of restorative material. Restorative materials used
were Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cement (GC Fuji II LC,
GC Corporation, Japan), Glass Ionomer Cement (GC Fuji
IXGP, GC Corporation, Japan), Hybrid Composite resin
(Z100,3M Dental Products, U.S.A.) and Nano Composite
resin(Z350, 3M ESPE FiltekTM Universal Restorative,
U.S.A).80 prepared cavities were divided into 4 groups
comprising of 20 cavities in each group. Group I was restored
with Fuji II LC, Group II with Fuji IXGP, Group III with Z
100 and Group IV with Z- 350 restorative material
respectively. All the restorations were carried out according to
the manufacturers’ instructions23. Finishing and polishing was
done and then the restored teeth were stored in distilled water
for 24 hours24, after which they were placed in separate test
tubes and thermocycled25. The teeth were subjected to 500
cycles26. Each cycle consisted of 25 seconds in 37º neutral
bath, 5 seconds in a 5º cold water bath, 25 seconds in 37º
neutral bath again and 5 seconds in a 55º hot water
bath27.Subsequently the samples were coated completely with
nail varnish leaving 2 mm of the restorative margins28 and
their apices were sealed with green stick compound to prevent
the penetration of dye other than the restored cavity. The
samples were then placed in a solution of 2% methylene blue
dye for 24 hours at room temperature29,30. The samples were
then thoroughly cleaned and rinsed under tap water. Each
crown was then sectioned bucco-lingually with diamond
cutting disc mounted on a slow speed straight handpiece. The
sections were stored in 100% humidity before being examined
under stereomicroscope (MTR 27, WILD, Made in
Switzerland; Photographic attachment - Leica MPS 48) under
16x magnification to measure the depth of dye penetration.
The following criteria was followed to score dye
penetration31:0–No penetration;1–Leakage less than half or
equal to gingival or occlusal wall;2–Leakage more than half of
gingival or occlusal wall and up to the axial wall;3–Leakage
along the axial wall.
For the purpose of statistical analysis, the data
obtained was fed into computer and analyzed using Statistical
Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software version 15.0.
RESULTS
Table 1 shows the Micro-leakage score of four
groups (80 samples), In the present study, minimum micro-
leakage was observed in Group II - Fuji IXGP (mean micro-
leakage of 0.450±0.605) followed by Group IV - Z350 (mean
Govil S. et al. A comparative evaluation of micro-leakage.
micro-leakage of 0.500±0.607). Group III - Z100 showed
moderate micro-leakage (mean micro-leakage of 1.200±0.951).
Group I – Fuji II LC showed maximum micro-leakage (mean
micro-leakage of 2.300±0.801). Table 2 shows the mean
High intergroup variability (F=26.085; p<0.001) A
perusal of Table 3 shows that Group II-Fuji IXGP and Group
micro-leakage while Group I shows maximum micro-leakage.
DISCUSSION:
It is apparent that micro-leakage around restorations
is a series of phenomenon and not a single entity32. Although
ionic charge and chemical reactivity of diffusing fluids have a
part in the marginal leakage, the physical and chemical nature
of the restorative materials, the clinical skills of the operator
also play vital role in reducing micro-leakage. The aspect of
micro-leakage has been the focus of much attention in
assessing the success of any restorative material in the oral
environment. Dimensional changes and lack of adaptation of
restoration leads to marginal leakage33. The properties of the
dental restorative materials which contribute largely to micro-
leakage are coefficient of thermal expansion, polymerization
shrinkage and property of adhesion.
Micro-leakage is used as a measure by which
clinicians and researchers can predict the performance of a
restorative material34. Over the past fifty years, many changes
have occurred in the development and availability of dental
restorative materials35. Inspite of these researches in dental
restorative materials, the problem of micro-leakage continues
to exist. Therefore, there is still a constant search for a new
leakage-free restorative material that ensures adhesion to the
tooth structure in order to minimize the leakage potential.
Several methods are available for evaluating in vitro
micro-leakage32 including radioisotopes36, dyes37, neutron
activation analysis38, bacterial penetration39, computerized
image analysis40 and scanning electron microscopy41; dyes
being the most popular. This method allows the production of
sections showing leakage in contrasting colors to both tooth
and restoration without the need for further chemical reactions
or exposure to potentially hazardous radiation. In the present
study, 2% methylene blue was selected because of ease of
availability and manipulation10. The specimens were soaked in
the dye for twenty four hours which is considered to be a
standard time span for dye to penetrate. Thereafter, the teeth
were sectioned and were observed for micro-leakage under
stereomicroscope at 16x magnification under specific scoring
criteria.
Group No. of Mean
samples Micro-leakage
I(Fuji II LC) 20 2.300±0.801
II(Fuji IXGP) 20 0.450±0.605
III(Z100) 20 1.200±0.951
IV(Z350) 20 0.500±0.607
Total 80 1.113±1.055
Table 2: Mean micro-leakage of the four tooth colored
restorative materials
IJCPHR 2016, Volume 1, Issue 1, Page Number 11

In the present study, during the inter-group
comparison, no significant statistical difference was observed
between Fuji IXGP (Group II with a mean of 0.450 and
standard deviation of ± 0.605) and Z350 (Group IV with a
mean of 0.500 and standard deviation of ± 0.607). Maximum
micro-leakage was observed in Fuji II LC (Group I with a
mean of 2.300 and standard deviation of ±0.801), while
moderate micro-leakage was seen in Z100 (Group III with a
mean of 1.200 and standard deviation of ± 0.951).
Needet Erdilek, Ferit Ozata & Figen Sepetcioglu22
observed the sealing ability of hybrid composite resin , resin
modified glass ionomer cement and glass ionomer resin
cement .They found that hybrid composite resin provided a
better seal than resin modified glass ionomer cement. The
results were similar to the results of this study .Similar results
were obtained by the studies done by Adrian U.J. Yap, C.C.
Lim & Jennifer C.L. Neo26 and U.A. Nayak, P.Sudha &
M.Vidya.42
Comparison "t" "p value "
Group I vs II 8.241 <0.001
Group I vs III 3.955 <0.001
Group I vs IV 8.008 <0.001
Group II vs III 2.975 0.005
Group II vs IV 0.261 0.796
Group III vs IV 2.774 0.009
Table 3: Intergroup comparison of mean micro-leakage
of all the groups.
P. Mali, S. Deshpande & A. Singh13 conducted a study
to evaluate and compare the micro-leakage with conventional
glass ionomer cement (Fuji II) and hybrid composite resin (Z
100). They found that conventional glass ionomer cement
(Fuji II) showed maximum leakage followed by hybrid
composite (Z 100) which is contrary to our study.
Andreina Castro & Robert E.Feigal40 assessed micro-
leakage of the Fuji IXGP material with Fuji II,Vitremer and a
composite resin (TPH). They concluded that Fuji IXGP
behaved similarly to the composite resin and to the Resin
modified glass ionomer (Vitremer), while Fuji II showed more
leakage than all the other groups. These results are in
agreement with our study that new glass ionomer cement
(Fuji IXGP) showed less micro-leakage and could be compared
to composite resin. At the same time, it showed dissimilarity to
our study that Fuji IXGP could be compared to Fuji II LC.
F.Yalcin, Y.Korkmaz and M.Baseren 43 conducted a
study to investigate the effect of polishing systems on the
micro-leakage of a nanofill (Filtek Supreme & Single Bond), a
nanohybrid (Grandio & Solobond) and a microhybrid (Arteis &
Excite) composite resin.They concluded that most micro-
leakage was seen in nanohybrid composite resin, while least
micro-leakage was observed in nanofill composite resin. In the
present study, we have come across with similar findings that
nano composite resin showed less micro-leakage when
compared to hybrid composite resin.
In comparison to our study, most of the studies reveal
that glass ionomer cement shows more micro-leakage when
compared to resin modified glass ionomer cement and
composite resin. Since Fuji IXGP is improved conventional
glass ionomer cement, it behaves similar to composite resin40.
It can be attributed to the fact that free polyacrylic acid ions
Govil S. et al. A comparative evaluation of micro-leakage.
are available for immediate and effective ion exchange between
enamel and dentin and the restorative material. Its high bond
strength with flexibility allows a complete marginal
adaptation to ensure a tight, chemically fused, bacteria-proof
seal, thus leading to reduced micro-leakage.
Nano composite restorative material contains a filler
of a combination of a non-agglomerated / non-aggregated 20
nm nanosilica and loosely bound agglomerated zirconia / silica
nanocluster of size 5-20 nm. The cluster particle size ranges
from 0.6-1.4 microns. This use of this fine particle size can be
reasoned for the observation that less micro-leakage is present
in a nanocomposite resin as compared to a hybrid composite
resin.
CONCLUSION:
The present study led to the conclusion that micro-
leakage was evident in all the four restorative materials tested
in the study. No significant statistical difference was observed
between Group II - Fuji IXGP (mean micro-leakage of 0.450
and standard deviation of ± 0.605) and Group IV - Z350
(mean microlekage of 0.500 and standard deviation of ±
0.607). Moderate micro-leakage was seen in Group III - Z100
(mean micro-leakage of 1.200 and standard deviation of ±
0.951). Maximum micro-leakage was observed in Group I -
Fuji II LC (mean micro-leakage of 2.300 and standard
deviation of ±0.801).
The present study made a sincere attempt to
investigate the micro-leakage of four tooth coloured
restorative materials but inspite of tremendous improvement
in technologies, none of the materials perfectly bond with the
tooth structure. Further research is needed to divulge an ideal
restorative material with excellent marginal sealing ability and
adaptability.
FINANCIAL SUPPORT AND SPONSORSHIP:
Nil.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST:
There are no conflicts of interest.
REFERENCES:
1. Martin E. Adaptation and micro-leakage of composite
resin restorations. Australian Dental Journal 1984; 29(6):
362-70.
2. Henry L, Lee M, Swartz L. Scanning electron microscope
study of composite restorative materials. Journal of
Dental Research1970; 49(1):149.
3. Neiva IF,de-Andrada MAC, Baratieri LC, Monteiro S,
Ritter AV. An in vitro study of the effect of restorative
technique on marginal leakage in posterior composites.
Operative Dentistry 1998; 23: 282-289.
4. Kaplan I, Mincer HH, Harris EF, Cloyd JS. Micro-leakage
of composite resin and glass ionomer cement restorations
in retentive and nonretentive cervical cavity preparations.
Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 1992; 68(4): 616-622.
5. Bausch JR, de-Lange K, Davidson CL, Peters A, de-Gee
AJ. Clinical significance of polymerization shrinkage of
IJCPHR 2016, Volume 1, Issue 1, Page Number 12

composite resins. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 1982;
48(1): 59-67.
6. Bullard RH, Leinfelder KF, Russell CM. Effect of
coefficient of thermal expansion on micro-leakage. Journal
of American Dental Association 1988; 116: 871-874.
7. Attin T, Buchalla W, Keilbassa AM, Hellwig E. Curing
shrinkage and volumetric changes of resin modified glass
ionomer restorative materials. Dental materials 1995; 11:
359-362.
8. Salama FS, Riad MI, Megid FYA. Micro-leakage and
marginal gap formation of glass ionomer resin
restorations. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry 1995;
20(1): 31-36.
9. Tao L, Simpson M, Pashley DH. Permeability and micro-
leakage of Class II resin composite restorations. Journal of
Dentistry 1994; 22: 49-56.
10. Puppala R, Hegde A, Munshi AK. Laser and light cured
composite resin restorations: In vitro comparison of
isotope and dye penetrations. Journal of Clinical Pediatric
Dentistry 1996; 20(3): 213-218.
11. Tjan AHL, Dent DR, Dunn JR. Micro-leakage at gingival
dentin margins of Class V composite restorations lined
with light cured glass ionomer cement. Journal of
American Dental Association 1990; 121: 706-710.
12. Phair CB, Zidan O, Gomez-Marin O, Han S. Marginal gap
formation in the composite resin / glass ionomer cement
Class V restoration. Dental materials 1988; 4: 134-138.
13. Mali P, Deshpande S, Singh A. Microleakage of
restorative materials: An in vitro study. J Indian Soc
Pedod Prev Dent 2006;24:15-8.
14. Sim TPC, Sidhu SK. The effect of dentinal conditioning
on light activated glass ionomer cement. Quintessence
International 1994; 25(7): 505-8.
15. Ameye C, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. Conventional and
microfilled composite resin. Part I. color stability and
marginal adaptation. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
1981; 46(6): 623-30.
16. Crim GA, Mattingly SL. Evaluation of two methods for
assessing marginal leakage. Journal of Prosthetic
Dentistry 1981; 45(2): 160-63.
17. Hawkins IK, Fairhurst CR, Kinzer RC, Okabe T. Effects
of cavity design on micro-leakage in Class V restorations.
Journal of Dental Research 1976; 55(B):140.
18. Crim GA Assessment of micro-leakage of 12 restorative
systems. Quintessence International 1987; 18(6): 419-421.
19. Crim GA. Influence of bonding agents and composites on
micro-leakage. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 1989;
61(5): 571-574.
Govil S. et al. A comparative evaluation of micro-leakage.
20. Wilder AD, Swift EL, May KN. Effect of finishing
technique on the micro-leakage and surface texture of
resin-modified glass ionomer restorative materials.
Journal of Dentistry 2000; 28: 367-73.
21. Neme AL, Evans DB, Maxson BB. Evaluation of dental
adhesive systems with amalgam and resin composite
restorations: Comparison of micro-leakage and bond
strength results. Operative Dentistry 2000; 25: 512-19.
22. Needet Erdilek, Ferit Ozata & Figen Sepetcioglu. Micro-
leakage of glass ionomer cement, composite resin and
glass ionomer resin cement. Journal of Clinical Pediatric
Dentistry 1997; 21(4): 311-14.
23. Hembree JH, Andrews JT . Micro-leakage of several class
V anterior restorative materials: a laboratory study.
Journal of American Dental Association 1978; 97: 179-83.
24. Manhart J, Chen HY, Mehl A. Marginal quality and
micro-leakage of adhesive class V restorations. Journal of
Dentistry 2001; 29: 123-30.
25. Crim GA, Swartz ML, Phillips RW. Comparison of four
thermocycling techniques. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
1985; 53(1): 50-53.
26. Adrian U.J.Yap, C.C. Lim & Jennifer C.L. Neo. Marginal
sealing ability of three cervical restorative systems.
Quintessence International 1995 ; 26(11) : 817-20.
27. Antoniades MH, Pahini ST. Micro-leakage of bonded
amalgam restorations: Effect of thermal cycling.
Operative Dentistry 2000; 25: 316-23.
28. Hembree JH, Taylor TJ. Marginal leakage of visible light
cured composite resin restorations. Journal of Prosthetic
Dentistry 1984; 52(6): 790-93.
29. Ferrari M, Vichi A. Sealing ability of two compomers
applied with and without phosphoric acid treatment for
class V restorations in vivo. Journal of Prosthetic
Dentistry 1998; 79(2): 131-135.
30. Amsberry W, von-Fraunhofer JA, Hoots J, Rodgers J.
Marginal leakage of several acid-etch composite resin
restorative systems. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 1984;
52(5): 647-652.
31. Evancusky JW, Meiers JC. Micro-leakage of Compoglass
–F and Dyract – AP in class V preparations after salivary
contamination. Pediatric Dentistry 2000; 22(1): 39-42.
32. Going RE. Micro-leakage around dental restorations: a
summarizing review. Journal of American Dental
Association 1972; 84: 1349-1357.
33. Nelson RJ, Wolcott RW, Paffenbarger GC. Fluid
exchange at the margins of dental restorations. Journal of
American Dental Association 1952; 44: 288- 295.
IJCPHR 2016, Volume 1, Issue 1, Page Number 13
 Govil S. et al. A comparative evaluation of micro-leakage.
34. Srisawasdi S, Boyer DB, Reinhardt JW. The effect of
removal of smear layer on micro-leakage of class V
restorations in vitro. Dental materials 1988; 4: 384-389.
35. Kitty MY, Stephen HY. Clinical evaluation of compomer
in primary teeth: 1 year results. Journal of American
Dental Association 1997; 128: 1088-1096.
36. Tulunoglu O, Tulunoglu I, Ulusu T. Penetration of
radiocalcium at the margins of resin and glass ionomer
dentine bonding agents in primary and permanent teeth.
Journal of Dentistry 2000; 28: 481-486.
37. Grobler SR, Rossouw RJ, Van TJ. In vitro, relative micro-
leakage of five restorative systems. International Dental
Journal 1999; 49: 47-52.
38. Going RE, Myers HM, Prussin SG. Quantitative method
for studying micro-leakage in vivo and in vitro. Journal of
Dental Research 1965.
39. Derkson GD, Pashley DH, Derkson ME. Micro-leakage
measurement of selected restorative materials: A new in
vitro method. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 1986; 56(4):
435-440.
40. Castro A, Feigal RF. Micro-leakage of a new improved
glass ionomer restorative material in primary and
permanent teeth. Pediatric Dentistry 2002; 24(1): 23-28.
41. Pashley DH, Michelich V, Kehl T. Dentin permeability:
effects of smear layer removal. Journal of Prosthetic
Dentistry 2001; 46(5): 531-537.
42. Nayak UA, Sudha P, Vidya M. A comparative evaluation
of four adhesive tooth coloured restorative materials: An
in vitro study. Indian Journal of Dental Research 2002;
13(1): 49-53.
43. Yalcin F, Korkmaz Y, Baseren M. The effect of two
different poishing techniques on micro-leakage of new
composites in Class V restorations. Journal of
contemporary dental practice. 2006; 7(5): 18-25.

Cite this article as: Govil S, Gupta V, Bhatt A. A

comparative evaluation of micro-leakage of different tooth
colored restorative materials. An in-vitro study. IJCPHR
2016; 1(1):10-14.

IJCPHR 2016, Volume 1, Issue 1, Page Number 14

View publication stats